We had the exact same problem. MT really doesn't keep up on the x86 stuff.
What we did to patch it was set both sides to 1g full and turn off auto
negotiate. Seemed to get us by.
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Faisal Imtiaz
wrote:
> I have not seen this issue on any of our i7 x86 routers...
>
>
There are $100 6 GHz radios now. I see them getting into the US space
regardless.
https://routerboard.com/RBSXTG-6HPnD
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Seth Mattinen"
To: wireless@wi
On 6/5/17 09:13, Chuck Hogg wrote:
> I think so long as we protect existing uses of 6GHz, I'd be open to more
> unlicensed spectrum.
Future use of 6GHz as it's currently used should also be protected.
~Seth
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
On 6/5/17 09:10, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> Another "lightly licensed" MAY work. But just another extension of
> part-15 would be a cluster f*ck.
Lightly licensed NN was a joke and should not be repeated.
~Seth
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wis
Hi Mark:
I just wanted to give my input. I think in general, access to more
spectrum is a good thing. It's my understanding that the existing users of
6GHz would be unaffected and protected.
Given that, there are huge swaths of spectrum not in use in rural America.
Matt Larsen and I discussed a
Another "lightly licensed" MAY work. But just another extension of part-15
would be a cluster f*ck.
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 09:05, David Jones wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be best to have it ruled as some form of intelligent design and
> not a free for all part 15?
>
> We are all for more spectrum to
Wouldn't it be best to have it ruled as some form of intelligent design and
not a free for all part 15?
We are all for more spectrum to *USE *However, most of us have seen useful
spectrum become completely useless by a mass of wifi that was not designed
to scale well or play nice with others.
wou
And also non-WISPS, such as Comcast/Xfinity and every tom, dick and harry
router manafacturer. It'll end up heavily congested with crap, just like 5 Ghz,
and become useless.
We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we did that.
-Mike
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 08:17, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
>> On
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> On 6/5/17 4:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>>
>> It’s curious that you would give up access to potentially >1000Mhz of
>> clean mid-band spectrum because you don’t want your competitors using
>> it. Given the current limited amount of sp
On 6/5/17 8:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>
> Read it again. PTP links are protected in 6Ghz, and would continue to be
> protected. Not yet determined (and this is a very long process) is how new
> PTP links would be established.
>
> WISPA’s long standing and continuing policy is to advocate
You are assuming the competitors do the same...
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 08:04, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 5, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
>> On 6/5/17 4:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>>>
>>> It’s curious that you would give up access to potentially >1000Mhz of
>>> clean
On 6/5/17 4:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>
> It’s curious that you would give up access to potentially >1000Mhz of
> clean mid-band spectrum because you don’t want your competitors using
> it. Given the current limited amount of spectrum available for PTMP
> use how do you propose to serve th
Agreed that 6Ghz is far from "legacy". We sell and install a ton of it for
rural and semi-rural ISP's, broadcast industry, and other customers. 11Ghz
can't do the distance for a lot of links.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:00 AM, wrote:
>
>
> It's not that I don't want the band used by my competit
It's not that I don't want the band used by my competitors, I just want it to
remain a useful spectrum for what its best at: long range PtP communications.
Our competitors have access to the band the same way we do and that's a good
thing.
We absolutely need the part 101 bands to guarant
There are plenty of paths around here where you can't get any 6 GHz licenses in
any meaningful capacity.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Radabaugh"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sen
Agreed. +1
David
On 06/04/2017 07:35 PM, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> +1000
>
>> On Jun 4, 2017, at 16:23, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/2/17 2:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>>> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the
>>> membership and for those who use them if
The proposals protect Part 101 links using a database system.
It’s curious that you would give up access to potentially >1000Mhz of clean
mid-band spectrum because you don’t want your competitors using it. Given the
current limited amount of spectrum available for PTMP use how do you propose t
17 matches
Mail list logo